Talmud for Horayot 2:1
ונמצא אסור שהוא חייב מה בין סבור שהוא חלב ונמצא שומן שהוא פטור לא אמרו ליה כלום. אמר לון נימא לכון מינן או הודע אליו חטאתו והביא. עאל רבי יוסי אמרין ליה קשי לן הדא מילתא אמר לון ולמה לא אגיבתוניה מן הדא או הודע אליו חטאתו והביא אמרין ליה חגיי קשיתה חגיי קיימתה. על דעתיה דרבי ישמעאל דלא מפנה אהן קרייה במחוייבי
Come and see, [let us test this hypothesis by implication from our mishnah]: "...from the time that the Kohanim go in to eat their terumah." It is [still close to] daytime. It is as soon as the stars come out!? [and the Tosefta says:] "...from the time when people usually go in to eat their bread on the eve of the Sabbath." That is an hour or two after nightfall! [These are obviously two very different times.] And yet you say: "These opinions are close enough to be equal!?" --Rabbi Yose said: "Let the problem be resolved [by claiming that the Tosefta refers only] to those small villages whose way is to go on up [home] while it is still day, to spare themselves from the animals." It teaches in a Baraita: "The one who recites [the Shema] before this has not fulfilled their obligation. If so, why do we recite it [before nightfall] in the synagogue? Rabbi Yose said: 'We do not recite it in the synagogue to fulfill its obligation. Rather, [we recite it] so that we may stand up in prayer after a word of Torah." Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Yirmiyah: "If there is doubt whether he made the blessings after his food or not, he should make the blessings [even though he may be doing it a second time]. For it is written (Deut. 8:10) 'And you shall eat, and you shall be satisfied, then you shall bless [the LORD your God...]' If there is doubt whether he prayed or not, he should not pray [as he may have already done so.]" But he disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan. For Rabbi Yohanan said: "If only a person could pray the entire day!" Why? For prayer is never a waste. If there is doubt whether he recited [Shema] or not, we may gather from this baraita: "The one who recites [the Shema] before this has not fulfilled their obligation." And is not before [nightfall] a time of doubt? And yet you say "he should recite [Shema]." This implies that if there is doubt whether he recited [Shema] or not, he should recite [Shema]. [From Tosefta 1:1] "The indicator of this is when the stars come out. And though there is no proof of it [from Scripture], there is a trace of it: (Neh. 4:21) '...we were doing the labor, and half of them were holding the spears from the break of dawn until the stars came out.' And he writes: '...it is guard-time for us by night and labor by day." How many stars should come out so that it becomes night? Rabbi Pinhas in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Papa: "One star, surely day. Two, doubt. Three, surely night." "...two doubt," [really]? But is it not written, "...until the stars came out!?" Rather, [the plural] "stars" indicates two! [Not three!]--The first one doesn't count. [An unattributed baraita:] "If he sees one star on the eve of the Sabbath and performs a creative task, he is exempt [from punishment]. Two, he brings a conditional guilt offering, Three, he brings a sin offering. On the departure of the Sabbath, if he sees on star and performs a creative task,
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
The questions raised about the verse are twofold. If it had simply said and did one, we would have inferred that every single infraction needs a separate sacrifice. If it had said and did these, all infractions committed in one state of inadvertence would be covered by one sacrifice. The mention of one in parallel with these creates a seeming contradiction. In addition, in each case the prefix מ “of” in standard rabbinic interpretation is read as “not all”. Then what does it mean that a single prohibition is partially violated?. Of these, to obligate for derivatives27The last question is easily answered for the Sabbath. Later in the Chapter the forbidden actions on the Sabbath are described by 39 categories. The particular actions labelling the categories are called אַב מְלָאכָה “primary actions”; any other action subsumed under the same category is a תּוֹלְדָה “derivative”. All actions subsumed under the same category are considered identical in some abstract sense even if they actually are very different; e. g. plucking feathers from a bird is forbidden as a derivative of shearing. Any one of the actions subsumed under one category triggers the liability for a sacrifice; it is not necessary that all actions carrying the same label be acted on. On the other hand, most actions trigger liability only if a certain minimum of work was done, as will be detailed in the following Chapters; an action which is too insignificant remains forbidden but does not trigger liability for a sacrifice.. Or should we say that the verse refers to idolatry? Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken28The expression is difficult to understand since one does not cross rivers (in this case Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan) by hand but by boat. Since the expression is confirmed later in the Chapter and in Nazir 6:1, it cannot be emended. It seems that Rav (not Rebbi) Zakkai swam crossing the rivers on his way to Palestine.; he is liable only once29Sanhedrin Chapter 7:11 Note 256. Worshipping strange deities in the way prescribed for Jewish worship in all its forms is one and the same offense. But worshipping strange deities in their own characteristic ways is a separate offense for each deity.. Before it was broken in his hand there was one but no these; after it was broken in his hand there was these but no one30Since the question was raised whether Lev. 4:2 could be interpreted to refer only to idolatry the answer seems to be in the negative, since for R. Zakkai there are only single offenses (one) and no general category (these) whereas for R. Joḥanan the situation is the inverse, in contrast to the Sabbath when liability for a sacrifice can be triggered either by a single action (one) or by a multiplicity of different actions all falling under the same category (these).. But it could be idolatry worshipped by the rules of worship of Heaven as by prostration. In its own worship to obligate for each one separately. By the rules of worship of Heaven to obligate one for all of them31Since in the Second Commandment prostration is mentioned before worship of strange deities it clearly is a separate offense. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:11 Notes 252 ff.. Like prostration to obligate for partial action32It is punishable even if not executed in the full manner prescribed for the Temple, lying down flat with outstretched arms and legs.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. It is written33Lev. 4:3., if the anointed priest should sin to damage the people … he has to bring a bull. This excludes idolatry for which he does not bring a bull but only a she-goat34Horaiot Mishnah 2:8.. They objected, are there not fat and sexual taboos for which the Anointed brings a bull? We come only to state things that have derivatives. Fat has no derivatives35Fat is forbidden if it is from an animal whose kind is acceptable as a sacrifice and which is of the kind exactly prescribed in Lev. to be burned on the altar. There are no extensions or derivatives.. For sexual taboos He made one who touched equal to one who had full intercourse36Forbidden sexual relations are exactly those described in Lev. 18. In addition in Lev. 20:18 the sex act is defined at touching of sexual organs; the only actions triggering the liability for a sacrifice are explicitly spelled out in the verses; there are no categories nor derivatives. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:5 (Notes 72–85).. The colleagues say, a Sabbath it is for the Eternal, to obligate for each single Sabbath37Lev. 23:3. Since the attempt to derive the rules of the Mishnah from Lev. 4:2 ran into difficulties, they propose a direct interpretation of verses referring to the Sabbath only.. Rebbi Ila said, it is written38Ex. 35:2. The Sabbath is mentioned in the singular.: Anybody doing work on it shall by put to death, not one who does on it and another. You are saying, the Sabbaths do not combine. Do they separate39That Sabbaths do not combine means that if somebody did less than a punishable amount of work on one Sabbath and again less than a punishable amount the next Sabbath they do not add up to the liability for a sacrifice even if the actions were committed in the same period of oblivion of the rules of the Sabbath. In this the rules of the Sabbath parallel the rules of forbidden fat. Eating forbidden fat triggers the liability for a sacrifice only if a minimum was eaten within the time of a meal (defined as time needed to eat half a loaf of bread, Horaiot 3:3 Note 66). Less than minimum amounts eaten at different times do not trigger liability. On the other hand, once liability was triggered within one period of oblivion, it automatically covers all other offenses of the same kind during the same period of oblivion. The question is now asked whether if an inadvertent desecration of the Sabbath triggered the obligation of a sacrifice and the perpetrator did not become aware of his offense before committing the same also on another Sabbath, he is liable for only one or for several sacrifices?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun40Since the father is known in the Babli as Rabin, the reading of G, בין, seems better than the reading everywhere in the Leiden ms., בון. said, just as they do not combine they do not separate.
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin
Jerusalem Talmud Horayot
[Does it follow Rebbi, for Rebbi said,] the Anointed refers to the case of action in error, but for the rabbis, it refers to forgetting a topic.
In contrast to the Mishnah, which for the High Priest as for the Court requires both an element of oblivion and acting in error, Rebbi points out that for the Court, the forgetting is the Court’s but the action in error is the public’s. Rebbi compares the status of the High Priest to that of the Court. Since for general errors the Mishnah states that the same rules apply to the High Priest as to the Court, the argument must be about the sin of idolatry where the High Priest is not mentioned. The rabbis note that the High Priest does not have the status of the Court vis-a-vis the public; his rulings are private, not public actions. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible unless he act. They do not deny that an element of oblivion is required to trigger the obligation of the purification sacrifice. the Anointed, error in action it is. But if the rabbis, oblivion of a topic it is. Rebbi Huna34The reading “R. Huna”, a student of R. Jeremiah, is preferable to the reading of B: “R. Hiyya”, the teacher of R. Zeˋira. said, it was needed for the rabbis. That you should not say, the Anointed and idolatry: Rebbi said, in acting in error; the rabbis said, in forgetting a topic. He said [ ]35The text of the ms., “what for easy what” seems corrupt. It is better to follow the reading of B: “He said to them, why? Because … “. The Anointed is not mentioned in the last sentence of the Mishnah, but this does not mean that the rule given there does not apply to him., because we did not state about the Anointed. But in the former36In Mishnah 2, in the last sentence about idolatry the High Priest is not mentioned but everybody agrees that it also applies to him; so the parallel sentence in Mishnah 3 also must apply to him. The Mishnah strictly follows the rabbis, not Rebbi., we did not state about the Anointed but the Anointed is included, and here, even though we did not state about the Anointed, the Anointed is included.